THat's just a sampling. But would you consider any of the above guys in the top 30 all-time? But they were better than Nolan at getting outs and preventing runs from scoring, which is about all the job of a pitcher is.

Nolan is tied for 271st all-time in ERA+. I know its not the end all or be all of statistics, but it does have value because it captures whether the pitcher can prevent runs from scoring. Nolan simply wasnt very good at that. The dude could throw like a BEAST, but his command wasnt great, and as a result, he gave up runs even when he wasnt giving up hits.

Hypothetical - pitch him in his prime in the AL east the past 10 to 15 years. Would he be any good against those disciplined moneyball lineups? Taking walks, moving station to station? I dont know. We might not give a crap about him if that had happened.

I appreciate the fervor of the pro-Ryan responses - but simply saying "The guy was awesome" doesn't really tell me anything other than that you are subject to the hype of the Ryan Express, and goo goo gah gah over the strikeouts. Let's take a dispassionate look, shall we?

Many of those ahead of him are relievers that pitched a fraction of his 5386 innings. And many of the starters ahead of him pitched a couple/few thousand less innings. Allowing hitters a .204/.307/.298 line over that many innings is great.

It's not so great when you walk 2,795 guys (all-time leader) and allow so many runs that your career record is only 32 games over .500 in 616 decisions. His season average was 14 - 13. Yes, when he was on with his control he was AMAZING to watch and he will always be the greatest strikeout/power pitcher ever, but his bottom line is very pedestrian and reeks of an average pitcher. As I said before, Ryan and Blyleven as well were AVERAGE pitchers who had nice careers with inflated numbers because of their sheer longevity. There is no way you can argue with the fact that both of them were barely over .500 pitchers. Ryan belongs in HOF simply because of the no-hitters and one-hitters, but take that away and you've essentially got Blyleven. And Blyleven should never have even had a sniff of the HOF without paying for a ticket.

Posted by trsnoke on 7/3/2013 10:11:00 PM (view original):Many of those ahead of him are relievers that pitched a fraction of his 5386 innings. And many of the starters ahead of him pitched a couple/few thousand less innings. Allowing hitters a .204/.307/.298 line over that many innings is great.

Most were fellow starters. But okay. Over 27 seasons and a ton of innings he compiled an 81.8 WAR. That's just north of 3 WAR a season. Even Blyleven averaged over 4.

That opponent hitter statline is awesome - especially in today's context - but remember he pitched when the game was a bit different.

Posted by trsnoke on 7/3/2013 10:11:00 PM (view original):Many of those ahead of him are relievers that pitched a fraction of his 5386 innings. And many of the starters ahead of him pitched a couple/few thousand less innings. Allowing hitters a .204/.307/.298 line over that many innings is great.

Most were fellow starters. But okay. Over 27 seasons and a ton of innings he compiled an 81.8 WAR. That's just north of 3 WAR a season. Even Blyleven averaged over 4.

That opponent hitter statline is awesome - especially in today's context - but remember he pitched when the game was a bit different.

And, as rsp notes - as good as he was, a .500 pitcher.

40% of the list ahead of him in ERA+ pitched 1/3 the amount of innings he did or less and another 25% pitched half his innings or less. Pitching that many more innings above league average is the definition of being above average.

MLB while Ryan was pitching - .257/.323/.381; league walk rate of 8.6%, strikeout rate of 14.1%
since Ryan - .264/.333/.419; league walk rate of 8.7%, strikeout rate of 17.3%. Biggest change is batted balls turning into hits and increase in HR. Looks like league has become more free-swinging, not much more patient.

You know this, but baseball is a team sport. Wins depend on pitching, defense, offense. Ryan had 2 runs of support or less in 37% of his starts. I think league average was about 31%. I'm sure there are teams he could have been on where his record would have been worse but probably more where his record would have been better. Someone else can look up park factors to see how that influenced his pitching and offensive support.

Would you rather have a pitcher who's doubtless HOF great for 12-15 years and gets injured a lot, or Nolan Ryan who can pitch his start almost every time for 27 years and usually be among the best? His longevity, his durability throughout the season, the number of pitches he would routinely throw - all of these save the team from using lesser quality relievers or AAA replacement starters. This is very hard to measure, but from having him in a couple progressive leagues, I'm reminded of how valuable it is.

I buy mattedesa's argument that sheer durability was among his chief values that is not captures in advance stat metrics. Makes you wonder hiw many of his walks came in the late innings when perhaps he was losing his edge, and a lesser mortal would already have been in the showers.

WAR says it all. At worst he was the 20th best pitcher of all time, at the worst. Only two pitchers were comparable to him during his career and that was Lefty and Blyleven. Everyone else played in different era's. And if you ever saw him pitch regularly you would also know that he had the reputation of being easy to steal against until of course coming to Rangers at end of career. Crappy catchers who could not throw out my grandmother and she is dead. Was he Pedro, Randy, Maddux, Koufax....NO but outside those greats he was the Best.